Elon Musk and the dangerous myth of omnigenius
Gautam Mukunda,
Tribune News Service
Elon Musk's misadventures with DOGE might be the ultimate example of a powerful flaw in how we think about leaders. That's our tendency to believe skills and accomplishments are portable, that someone who excels in one venue will be just as impressive in others. I call this exceptional — if imaginary — superpower 'omnigenius.' In reality, though, success doesn't exist without context. While there's no pleasure in watching Musk make a mess of the US government, maybe it will help clarify the crucial link between the two. Musk and DOGE show how a leader can be empowered by the omnigenius fantasy. Musk has surely done remarkable things. For all Tesla Inc.'s current struggles, it transformed the automotive sector. And it's almost impossible to overstate SpaceX's revolutionary impact on the space industry.
Once he joined the government, though, the story changed. In just one notable example, DOGE fired hundreds of employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency responsible for the production and security of nuclear weapons and management of nuclear waste sites. But the Trump administration reversed many of the cuts less than 48 hours later, when it became clear what these workers did and how important their roles are. 'The DOGE people are coming in with absolutely no knowledge of what these departments are responsible for,' said Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball at the time. Similarly, cuts to programs providing healthcare for 9/11 responders and survivors were later reversed, as were those to Social Security offices. Even DOGE's website had to delete all five of its biggest claims to savings after media organisations pointed out they were wrong.
Whatever you think of DOGE, we should all agree that accidentally damaging the agency in charge of American nuclear weapons is incompetent execution. And Musk isn't alone. It's become routine to see people with private sector successes deferred to as they regurgitate Russian propaganda on Ukraine or spread debunked anti-vaccine theories. This isn't just about business — the omnigenius myth runs deep in our culture. In Walt Disney Co.'s Marvel Comics Universe, Bruce Banner remarks that he has seven PhDs, an (absurd) shorthand for his multifold genius. (Having personally done just one, the prospect of earning a second could turn me into a giant green rage-monster, too.) On TV, how many times have you watched a character who's an expert in 'science,' do everything from sequence DNA to hack a computer? And don't forget the celebrities many of us trust to sell us everything from snacks to cars to prescription drugs.
But outside of the arenas that brought them success, why do we listen to these people? And why should they get positions of power in areas where they have little knowledge or experience? The explanation lies in a cognitive bias known as 'the Halo Effect,' a phenomenon where having one major positive quality tends to skew our perception of someone's other characteristics. That's because we often correlate unrelated characteristics, such as intelligence, attractiveness, social skills and loyalty. So if someone is, for instance, particularly attractive, there's a tendency to rate them as more intelligent, even with no evidence to suggest that's the case.
The halo effect makes us attribute success solely to the person, rather than to the combination of that person and the context he or she inhabits. But context is, virtually always, overwhelmingly important. This is why leaders who switch industries usually struggle. John Sculley sold soda brilliantly at PepsiCo Inc. but nearly derailed Apple Inc. Ron Johnson revolutionised retail at Apple, then tanked JCPenney. In both cases, the CEOs' latter companies lost more than half their market value during their leadership. Harvard Business School Professors Boris Groysberg and Nitin Nohria looked at people recruited from GE (at the time the pinnacle of American management) to be CEOs of other companies. They found that the leaders succeeded only when the challenges facing their new employer were similar to those they'd encountered at GE.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Russian CB cuts key rate to 20%, inflation slowing down
The Russian central bank cut its key interest rate by one percentage point to 20 per cent on Friday, saying economic growth is cooling down and inflation is slowing. 'Current inflationary pressures, including underlying ones, continue to decline. While domestic demand growth is still outstripping the capabilities to expand the supply of goods and services, the Russian economy is gradually returning to a balanced growth path,' the bank said in a statement. A Reuters poll had predicted that the central bank would keep the key rate on hold. It had been at 21 per cent since last October to curb inflation in the overheated economy, which is focused on the needs of the military fighting in Ukraine. As a result, Russia's economic growth rate fell to 1.5 per cent year-on-year in the first four months of 2025, compared to 4.3 per cent last year, prompting sharp criticism of central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina. Consumer prices have risen by 3.39 per cent since the start of the year, compared to 3.88 per cent in the same period last year, while the annualised inflation rate fell below 10 per cent in May after peaking at 10.34 per cent in March. The central bank forecasts inflation this year at 7 per cent to 8 per cent and economic growth at 1 per cent to 2 per cent. The Economy Ministry is more optimistic, predicting growth of 2.5 per cent. The strengthening of the rouble, which has rallied by about 40 per cent against the dollar since the start of the year, has aided the central bank in its fight against inflation by making imported goods cheaper. Its rise has been largely thanks to US President Donald Trump's efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. But most analysts agree that without any sign of a breakthrough in the talks, the rouble is waiting for a trigger to start falling. 'Tight monetary policy has a particularly strong effect on the decrease in prices for non-food goods, including through the rouble appreciation,' the central bank said. Inflationary expectations among households, an important gauge monitored by the central bank, rose for a second month in a row in May to a level last observed around the time of the last rate hike in October. Some analysts have linked the rise in inflationary expectations to a planned mid-year nationwide increase in payments for electricity, gas, water, and communal services for households, suggesting that the regulator might ignore the gauge this time. Food inflation, with prices for staples like potatoes tripling since last year due to a poor harvest, has severely affected Russia's poor. The harvest outlook for this year will heavily influence the central bank's thinking. 'As for food products and services, inflationary pressures remain high,' the bank said. The tight monetary policy, with the key rate at its highest level since the early 2000s and also the highest among major economies in the BRICS group, has made loans and debt financing, and therefore investment, inaccessible for many Russian firms. The central bank counters this by saying that its research shows enterprises in most sectors make enough profits to finance their investments and that the situation even in vulnerable sectors, such as construction, does not pose systemic risks. Meanwhile Russia's economic growth slowed to 1.4 per cent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025, the lowest quarterly figure in two years, data from the official state statistics agency showed on Friday. Economists have warned for months of a slowdown in the Russian economy, with falling oil prices, high interest rates and a downturn in manufacturing all contributing to headwinds. Moscow reported strong economic growth in 2023 and 2024, largely due to massive state defence spending on the Ukraine conflict. But economists have cautioned that growth driven by the defence industry is unsustainable and does not reflect a real increase in productivity. The Russian economy grew by 1.4 per cent year-on-year in the first three months of the year, the lowest quarterly figure since the first quarter of 2023, Rosstat data showed. The economy expanded 4.5 per cent in the previous quarter, according to the data. Prices have also been rising quickly across the Russian economy for months, driven up by massive government spending on the Ukraine conflict and deep labour shortages. Inflation in April remained above 10 per cent for the third month in a row, figures showed. Last month, the Russian central bank maintained its key interest rate at 21 per cent, with inflation starting to decline but new risks facing the Russian economy because of global economic turbulence triggered by US trade tariffs. 'A further decrease in the growth rate of the global economy and oil prices in case of escalating trade tensions may have proinflationary effects through the rouble exchange rate dynamics,' the central bank said in a statement. Agencies
